Share This Article:

Chaotic features analysis of EEG signals during hallucination tasks of waterloo-stanford standard

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:342KB) PP. 1175-1181
DOI: 10.4236/jbise.2010.312153    3,417 Downloads   7,193 Views   Citations


The present study looks carefully at EEG (Electroen-cephalograph) signals of people after the hypnosis inductions. Subjects were in three different categories of hypnotizability based on Waterloo-Stanford crite-ria; low, medium and high. Signals recorded during hallucination tasks of Waterloo-Stanford standard were applied to study the underlying dynamics of tasks and investigate the influence of hypnosis depth and concentration on recorded signals. To fulfill this objective, chaotic methods were employed; Higuchi dimension and correlation dimension. The results of the study indicate channels whose chaotic features are significantly different among people with various levels of hypnotizability. Moreover, a great consis-tency exists among channels involved in each task with brain's dominant hemisphere and brain lobes' functions. Another considerable result of the study was that the medium hypnotizable subjects were mostly affected by inductions and instructions of the hypnotizer (more than low or high hypnotizable sub-jects). The present study demonstrates a remarkable innovation in the analysis of hypnotic EEG; investi-gating the EEG signals of the hypnotized as doing hallucination tasks of Waterloo-Stanford standard orders.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Yargholi, E. and Nasrabadi, A. (2010) Chaotic features analysis of EEG signals during hallucination tasks of waterloo-stanford standard. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 3, 1175-1181. doi: 10.4236/jbise.2010.312153.


[1] Gruzelier, J.H. (1998) A working model of neurophysiology of hypnotic relaxation. 5th Internet World Congress for biomedical sciences. McMaster University, Canada, INABIS 98.
[2] Ray, W.J. (1998) Understanding hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility from a psychophysiological perspective. 5th Internet Word Congress for Biomedical Sciences, INABIS98.
[3] De Pascalisa, V., Ray, W.J., Tranquilloa, I. and D'Amicoa, D. (1998) EEG activity and heart rate during recall of emotional events in hypnosis: relationships with Hypnotizability and suggestibility. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 29, 255-275.
[4] Galbraith, G.C., et al. (1970) EEG and Hypnotic Susceptibility. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 72, 125-131.
[5] Crawford, H.J. (1998) Brain dynamic shifts during the elimination of perceived pain and distress: Neuroimaging studies of hypnotic analgesia. 5th Internet Word Congress for Biomedical Sciences, INABIS98.
[6] Crawford, H.J., et al. (1996) Self-Generated happy and emotions in low and highly hypnotizable person during waking and hypnosis: Laterality and regional EEG activity differences. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 24, 239-266.
[7] De Pascalis, V. (1998) Brain mechanisms and attentioanal processes in hypnosis. 5th Internet Word Congress for Biomedical Sciences, INABIS98.
[8] De Pascalis, V., et al. (1996) EEG asymmetry and heart rate during experience of hypnotic analgesia in high and low hypnotizables. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 163-175.
[9] Graffin, N.F., Ray, W.J. and Lundy, R. (1995) EEG concomitants of hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility. Jour- nal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 123-131.
[10] Williams, J. D. and Gruzelier, J. (2001) Differentiation of hypnosis and relaxation by analysis of narrow band theta and alpha frequencies. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 49, 185-206.
[11] Abootalebi, V. (2000) Investigation of hypnosis on EEG higher order spectra,” Master Thesis, Sharif University of Technology.
[12] (2008) Professional Hypnosis DataBank, February.
[13] Lubar, J.F., Gordon, D.M., Harrist, R.S., et al. (1991) EEG correlates of hypnotic susceptibility based upon fast fourier power spectral analysis. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 16, 75-80.
[14] Brady, B. and Stevens, L. (2000) Binaural-beat induced theta EEG activity and hypnotic susceptibility,” American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 43, 53-69.
[15] Fingelkurts, A.A., Fingelkurts, A.A., Kallio, S. and Revonsuo, A. (2007) Cortex functional connectivity as a neurophysiological correlates of hypnosis: An EEG case study. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1452-1462.
[16] Dumas, R.A. (2007) EEG Alpha-Hypnotizability correlations: A review. Psychophysiology, 14, 431-438.
[17] White, D., Ciorciari, J., Carbis, C. and Liley, D. (2009) EEG correlates of virtual reality hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 57, 94-116.
[18] Faber, P.L., Gianotti, L.R.R., Wohlgemuth, P. and Lehmann, D. (2000) Frequency domain EEG source locations during arm levitation under hypnosis: a pilot study. ISBET 2000, Millennium,Frankfurt on the Main, Germany.
[19] Nasrabadi, A.M. (2003) Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of consciousness variation and depth of hypnosis through intelligent processing of EEG signals. Ph.D. Thesis, Amir Kabir University.
[20] Lee, J.S. et al. (2007) Fractal analysis of EEG in hypnosis and its relationship with hypnotizability,” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 55, 14-31.
[21] Solhjoo, S., Nasrabadi, A.M. and Golpayegani, M.R.H. (2005) EEG-based mental task classification in hypnotized and normal subjects. Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference Shanghai, China, September 1-4, 2041-2043.
[22] Baghdadi, G. (2008) Hypnosis depth determination, using empirical mode decomposition. Master Thesis, Shahed University.
[23] Baghdadi, G. and Nasrabadi, A.M. (2009) Estimating final depth of hypnosis using extracted fractal features by EMD algorithms. 17th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering. Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
[24] Behbahani, S. (2008) Analysis of hypnotic EEG signals using fuzzy similarity index. Master Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch.
[25] Behbahani, S. and Nasrabadi, A.M. (2009) Application of fuzzy similarity index method in processing of hypnosis. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 2, 359-362.
[26] Aihara, K. and Matsumuto, G. (1986) Chaotic oscillations and bifurcations in squid giant axon. chaos, Manchester University Press.
[27] Babloyantz, A., Salazar, J.M. and Nicolis, C. (1985) Evidence of chaotic dynamics of brain activity during the sleep cycle. Physics Letter A, 111, 152-156.
[28] Bowers, K.S. (1998) Waterloo-Stanford group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, Form C: manual and response booklet. International Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 46(3), 250-268.
[29] Krisch, I., et al. (1998) Experimental scoring for the Waterloo-Stanford group scale. International Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 46, 269-279.
[30] Nasrabadi, A.M., Hashemi Golpaygani, M.R., Khalilzadeh, M.A. and Sharifi, A. (2003) Comparision between linear and nonlinear EEG signal processing during different mental activies. Scientific Journal of Amirkabir A, 55, 592-600.
[31] Hillborn, R.C. (2001) Chaos and nonlinear dynamics. 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 379-381.
[32] Grassberger, P. and Procaccia, I. (1983) Characterization of strange attractors. Physical Review Letters, 50, 346-349.
[33] Grassberger, P. and Procaccia, I. (1983) Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors. Physica D, 9, 189-208.
[34] Fraser, A.M. and Swinney, H.L. (1986) Independent coordinates for strange attractors from mutual information, Physical Review A, 33, 1134-40.
[35] Netter, F. (1983) The ciba collection of medical illustrations. Nervous System. Pt. 1, Anatomy and Physiology. Vol. 1, West Caldwell, NJ, Ciba.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.